Environment Committee approves ban on toxic pesticides
Monday, 17 November 2008 12:02 | 
| 
|
EU Member States face the prospect of tough negotiations with the European Parliament, after the environment Committee voted in favour of banning plant protection products that are dangerous to human health. The adoption of this position paves the way for a second reading of the pesticides package next January, and although there is still common ground to be found on certain issues, the French Presidency is hopeful of an agreement this time round.
A new compromise amendment which has been drafted has called for quantitative reduction targets of around 50% to be included in national plans for pesticide reduction. In addition to this MEPs also voted on the authorisation process and chose not to support the Council’s idea of zonal mutual recognition of products. The latter was particularly contentious, along with proposals for additional cut-off criteria for the most dangerous substances as a means of calculating associated risks.
Hiltrud Breyer, a German Green MEP and rapporteur on the authorisation directive said the outcome had set a ‘strong negotiating position for upcoming discussions with the Council and the European Commission by strengthening the cut-off criteria’. However Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) Deputy Director Monica Guarinoni has criticised the fact that this criteria will only be used where there is a significant risk to at least one in a million citizens, which she says is ‘very difficult to assess’, and that this could therefore be seen as a derogation of the original proposal.
The European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) meanwhile see the additional criteria that remain in the proposal as being ‘ideologically driven and have no scientific or practical basis’ and would lead to ‘an unnecessary ban on a number of products which have been shown to meet high safety standards and are currently being used safely by European farmers’.
Harmonisation rules for product authorisation is the other controversial area of discussion with Parliament rejecting the Council’s suggestion for a zonal mutual recognition of products. This would have seen the establishment of three geographical areas (North, Centre, South) within which various environmental, agricultural and climatic conditions are similar, therefore allowing for the mutual recognition of products to take place. However MEPs have called for a more centralised system with temporary, exceptional exemptions being offered for pesticides necessary for crop survival.
This outcome has been criticised, particularly by southern European Member States, because of the different outlook that southern and northern countries have to pesticides. Spanish MEP Pilar Ayuso has said that ‘northern countries can't understand how these amendments will affect southern countries,’ where pesticides play a far more important role.
The pesticides package is now set to be discussed, with negotiations to take place between Parliament and the Council and a decision expected early next year.
A new compromise amendment which has been drafted has called for quantitative reduction targets of around 50% to be included in national plans for pesticide reduction. In addition to this MEPs also voted on the authorisation process and chose not to support the Council’s idea of zonal mutual recognition of products. The latter was particularly contentious, along with proposals for additional cut-off criteria for the most dangerous substances as a means of calculating associated risks.
Hiltrud Breyer, a German Green MEP and rapporteur on the authorisation directive said the outcome had set a ‘strong negotiating position for upcoming discussions with the Council and the European Commission by strengthening the cut-off criteria’. However Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) Deputy Director Monica Guarinoni has criticised the fact that this criteria will only be used where there is a significant risk to at least one in a million citizens, which she says is ‘very difficult to assess’, and that this could therefore be seen as a derogation of the original proposal.
The European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) meanwhile see the additional criteria that remain in the proposal as being ‘ideologically driven and have no scientific or practical basis’ and would lead to ‘an unnecessary ban on a number of products which have been shown to meet high safety standards and are currently being used safely by European farmers’.
Harmonisation rules for product authorisation is the other controversial area of discussion with Parliament rejecting the Council’s suggestion for a zonal mutual recognition of products. This would have seen the establishment of three geographical areas (North, Centre, South) within which various environmental, agricultural and climatic conditions are similar, therefore allowing for the mutual recognition of products to take place. However MEPs have called for a more centralised system with temporary, exceptional exemptions being offered for pesticides necessary for crop survival.
This outcome has been criticised, particularly by southern European Member States, because of the different outlook that southern and northern countries have to pesticides. Spanish MEP Pilar Ayuso has said that ‘northern countries can't understand how these amendments will affect southern countries,’ where pesticides play a far more important role.
The pesticides package is now set to be discussed, with negotiations to take place between Parliament and the Council and a decision expected early next year.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
